Main problems each side needs to confront before start of series...

[vic_orthdox]

I was referring to 1998\99, 2002\03 and to a lesser extent 2001.
In each series which England's batsmen tried to dominate when, purely and simply, the bowling would not permit such an approach to be successful.

I think some of that can be attributed to the talent available in those tours as opposed to the most recent one, as well.

[vic_orthdox]

Oh, right... sorry, didn't realise, you should've said "in the last 3 years or so".

No worries.

[Richard]

Of course he has. That doesn't mean that he will bowl as well as he did in India though, it's a new environment.

No, it doesn't. But it seems to me that he's just been gradually building-up, bowling steadily better since the start of the calender-year 2004. I'd not be too surprised if he continues to bowl as well as he did in India - though of course until such a thing happens, one series isn't too meaningful.

They tend to turn? Actually, especially in Australia, pretty much all the pitches will turn a little bit later in the game (not the WACA, normally, or Hobart), even if they don't early on, and having a spin option will be quite valuable. As I said in my first post, the only situation in which I think England should pick five seamers is if Giles is missing and another seamer puts their hand up in a significant way in test cricket between now and then, like Anderson for example if he keeps bowling well. A spin option means variety, and variety means the ability to exploit different conditions, and if you're dealing with a pitch like Adelaide (for example) which is usually flat for the first few days and turns significantly later, England will be missing a trick if they can't take advantage of it.

Aside from Adelaide, I've seen absolutely no evidence of any Australian grounds producing pitches which start non-turning and change into turners in the course of a 5-day game. Indeed, it's very, very rare anywhere in The World in this day and age.
Variety is no use unless the conditions to allow what that particular variety exploits are in place - and I can't see much likelihood of any pitches at The 'Gabba, The WACA (given that we got the quadrennial turner last year) or The MCG helping Giles at any stage in the match. Hence, as in most cases, I feel the side would be strongest without a spinner.

[Richard]

Wow, look at that. Every batting lineup in the world is so, so unbelievably bad!

Well, there hasn't been too much good batting in the last year, no.
You'd be hard-pressed to miss that India's and Australia's are nowhere near as good as they were 2 years and more ago; you'd be hard-pressed to suggest South Africa's has been convincing of late; you'd be extremely hard-pressed to suggest England's has; and, indeed, West Indies, too.
I don't really think anyone would have claimed Pakistan, Sri Lanka or New Zealand's line-ups have been that strong at any recent time.

[vic_orthdox]

I think that the MCG (well, if it's a drop in wicket) will help Giles. They tend to be a lot slower in nature than a natural wicket and don't really have that much bounce, which won't worry Giles as he rarely bowls with much topspin.

[Richard]

I think some of that can be attributed to the talent available in those tours as opposed to the most recent one, as well.

Hmm... to me, the constant-attack reflects a lack of ability.
Trescothick in 2001 and 2002\03, for instance, attacked too much and paid for it. He didn't pay for an approach that was no different in 2005, because a) the catching and no-balling were poor and b) the accuracy wasn't a patch on the 2 previous series.
Even batsmen like Butcher, Hussain and Ramprakash, who have had many of their best moments playing defensive innings', at times got caught-up in the problems in said 3 series (albeit Thorpe only played 2 Tests out of 15). Players like Stewart, obviously, always got into problems occasionally due to over-aggressiveness, against any attack.
And the 1 batsman who pretty much never had problems being too aggressive was Atherton, and he usually got Jaffas from McGrath.

[Richard]

I think that the MCG (well, if it's a drop in wicket) will help Giles. They tend to be a lot slower in nature than a natural wicket and don't really have that much bounce, which won't worry Giles as he rarely bowls with much topspin.

Slowness isn't really helpful to spin, though - and certainly not when there's no turn.
When was the last time we saw a turning pitch (ie that turned for fingerspinners) for a 'Gabba or MCG Test?
And has there ever been 2 consecutive WACA Tests on turners? Only ever seems to happen once every 4 years to me.

[vic_orthdox]

Slowness isn't really helpful to spin, though - and certainly not when there's no turn.
When was the last time we saw a turning pitch (ie that turned for fingerspinners) for a 'Gabba or MCG Test?
And has there ever been 2 consecutive WACA Tests on turners? Only ever seems to happen once every 4 years to me.

The drop in pitches do turn more than your average Australian pitch though - just slower, and with not as much bounce. A slower pitch can often be a real advantage, as it makes it a lot harder for batsmen to play aggressive shots from the front foot.

[howardj]

One of the things that needs to be emphasised by Ponting (the team's best batsman) is that you can't bully this English pace battery (of Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison and Jones). For instance, Matt Hayden barely troubled the scorers in the 2005 series, until the Oval Test Match, where he was more circumspect and respectful towards the English quicks.

Likewise, Gilchrist was far too aggressive early on against the quality of fast bowling, and the conditions, he was confronting. A few of the Aussies became so used to bullying attacks, that (it appeared to me) when they were failing against a quality English pace battery, they found it very difficult to get out of the bullying mindset, and get in the trenches.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, there hasn't been too much good batting in the last year, no.
You'd be hard-pressed to miss that India's and Australia's are nowhere near as good as they were 2 years and more ago; you'd be hard-pressed to suggest South Africa's has been convincing of late; you'd be extremely hard-pressed to suggest England's has; and, indeed, West Indies, too.
I don't really think anyone would have claimed Pakistan, Sri Lanka or New Zealand's line-ups have been that strong at any recent time.

Australia's batting lineup is quite strong, really. There's some middle order issues with Martyn being inconsistent, Clarke, Symonds and Watson in and out of the team and so on. However, the top three is comfortably the strongest in world cricket, and when you add Hussey and Gilchrist to that, it's a strong lineup. India isn't the same right now obviously, but it's still a good lineup, as is Pakistan's, and South Africas. There's certainly more good batting lineups than bowling attacks around right now.

[FaaipDeOiad]

One of the things that needs to be emphasised by Ponting (the team's best batsman) is that you can't bully this English pace battery (of Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison and Jones). For instance, Matt Hayden barely troubled the scorers in the 2005 series, until the Oval Test Match, where he was more circumspect and respectful towards the English quicks.

Likewise, Gilchrist was far too aggressive early on against the quality of fast bowling, and the conditions, he was confronting. A few of the Aussies became so used to bullying attacks, that (it appeared to me) when they were failing against a quality English pace battery, they found it very difficult to get out of the bullying mindset, and get in the trenches.

It's interesting to note how much more ready to go on the defensive Australia have been since then. I can only assume it's been something the team has focused on, and if you look at the way the batting has functioned on some tricky pitches since then, be it simply slow or seaming or whatever, it's been pretty effective. We've seen aggressive guys like Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden make centuries that took 200+ balls (150+ in Gilchrist's case), and also Hussey and Martyn providing a stabilising influence. As long as they retain the ability to be aggressive and dominating when necessary, it's a major improvement as a batting side.

[TheEpic]

Really... how many particularly good batting-line-ups have we faced of late?

Well, West Indies (x2) (Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Gayle), New Zealand (...Fleming?), South Africa (x2) (Smith, Gibbs, Kallis), Australia (Ponting, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn), Pakistan (Inzy, Yousuf, Khan), India (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid).

India's was terrible by their standards - no Ganguly, Laxman facing just 1 ball in the series, Tendulkar not even at the races, Sehwag with some overdue rubbish, another opener who's done little at Test level, and two far-from proven middle-order players.

You can't dismiss batsmen who are dropped. Tendulkar was going through a lean spell, yes, but he's still one of the best batsmen in the world. Our seamers worked out and delivered a very effective plan to Sehwag, which other sides have been unable to do. Maybe he was out of touch, but we did not allow him to regain his form, as 95 runs @ 19 demonstrates.

Pakistan were, of course, better - but still, aside from Inzamam, it wasn't exactly formidable - a stopgap opener, Butt (who scored far more runs than he ever has against anyone else), Younis (who didn't do much in his 2 games), Mohammad Yousuf who did nothing until that dropped catch at Lahore (and who's generally done nothing against strong attacks in any case), one very poor excuse for a batsman (Raza), a far-from-proven batsman-wicketkeeper, and a glorified slogger.

We had a poor tour in Pakistan, as all sides are entitled to. Even so, our bowling rarely let us down. You say a batsman 'didn't do much', but that is down to great pace bowling! You lend weight to my argument by making statements such as that. Yousuf is another who has a great record against England in the past, but again did very poorly.

Australia had a pretty weak line-up - Martyn and Gilchrist who were both due a lean trot; Clarke who's still to suggest he's Test-class; Katich who was pretty poor for whatever reason; Hayden who was, finally, worked-out; and Ponting and Langer who were both nowhere near as good as normal (both got some good balls, but also played more than their normal share of bad strokes).

They were 'due a lean trot'? Who says? Again, plans were made and then delivered. Gilchrist is the most destructive batsman in the world, and he did nothing against England. He looked poor due to the quality of our bowling. Martyn was in a great patch, until we again outbowled him. Ponting has averaged near on 70 in the past couple of years, but I believe he averaged around 45 - due to our pace bowling. Hayden was 'worked out' you say - exactly. This is where the current England set up is strong. They discover weaknesses in batsmen and exploit them. I don't even know where your argument is!

Before that there was South Africa, who weren't up to much aside from Kallis - Amla, Hall and Tsolekie who're barely worth mention; van Jaarsveld, Boucher and Pollock who were below-par; Smith who was WAY below par; Dippenaar and Rudolph who are very far from proven Test batsmen; Gibbs who had 1 good game and 3 very poor ones; de Bruyn who inexplicably got just 1 game; and de Villiers who was messed-around far too much and only opened in half his innings.

Again, batsmen have to be dismissed - a good England attack was able to do this time after time.

Then there was New Zealand and West Indies... most of whom, despite a good batsman or two, did little of note.

I agree. Oh wait, you're disagreeing with me?

Really, we haven't faced a strong batting-line-up since South Africa in 2003. Even Sri Lanka in 2003\04 were far from convincing.

What a complete joke.

[Scaly piscine]

Wow, look at that. Every batting lineup in the world is so, so unbelievably bad!

Of course, why else do you think McGrath, Pollock (until late) and Harmison take wickets?

I think Harmison will take the most wickets of any of the England bowlers in Australia, he'll get a lot of confidence from the pace and bounce in the wickets. As Lance Corporal Jones says "they don't like it up 'em"

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Interestingly enough I'm almost 100% sure Adam Gilchrists slowest test century was 2 days ago against Banglasdesh.

[howardj]

It's interesting to note how much more ready to go on the defensive Australia have been since then. I can only assume it's been something the team has focused on, and if you look at the way the batting has functioned on some tricky pitches since then, be it simply slow or seaming or whatever, it's been pretty effective. We've seen aggressive guys like Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden make centuries that took 200+ balls (150+ in Gilchrist's case), and also Hussey and Martyn providing a stabilising influence. As long as they retain the ability to be aggressive and dominating when necessary, it's a major improvement as a batting side.

For sure. The above approach is really epitomised in Gilchrist's hundred in the first innings against the Bangers. He's still playing his swipes over mid-wicket, but being selective and being circumspect early on - he was really watchful. To that end, Allan Border - on Foxtel's Inside Cricket show - has been saying about Gilchrist for ages, that when you're in a form slump, try to keep the ball along the ground for your first 30 runs or so. You can still be aggressive, but try to eliminate that mode of dismissal, until you get set.